87
Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.2004.021543 on 8 February 2005. Downloaded from http://pmj.bmj.com/ on January 17, 2020 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by
REVIEW
The Advanced Trauma Life Support course: a history of
its development and review of related literature
M R Carmont
...............................................................................................................................
Postgrad Med J 2005;81:87–91. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2004.021543
The origins, development, and success of the ATLS course
are described with reference to the literature.
...........................................................................
S
ince 1978, the Advanced Trauma Life
Support (ATLS) course has instructed many
doctors from all over the world. Many
articles have been written about the course from
reviews to case reports and letters. A previous
review of trauma education has already
described methods of adult education.1 This
article presents a further review of the current
literature concentrating on the background,
efficacy, and educational methods of ATLS,
rather than discussion about the actual scientific
content of the course itself.
BACKGROUND
The ATLS course was established after a tragic
plane crash in 1976, which devastated an entire
family. The pilot, an orthopaedic surgeon named
James Styner, was seriously injured while his
wife was killed and three of his children
sustained critical injuries. He was horrified at
the treatment his family received at a local
hospital in rural Nebraska and decided that the
established system for managing the severely
injured was wrong. A group of local surgeons
and physicians, the Lincoln Medical Education
Foundation, together with the University of
Nebraska founded local courses aiming at teach-
ing advanced trauma life support skills.2 These
courses served as a framework for the national
ATLS courses adopted by the American College of
Surgeons’ Committee on Trauma.
The original aims of the ATLS courses were to
train those doctors who do not manage trauma
on a regular basis, such as rural general practi-
tioners, in the initial management of the severely
injured patient. The pilot courses were run in
Aubern, Nebraska in 1977. These had expanded
nationally under the auspices of the American
College of Surgeons by 1980. Early reports on the
implementation and evaluation of these pilot
....................... courses and the improvements in rural trauma
Correspondence to: care appeared in the literature soon afterwards.3 4
Mr M R Carmont, Improvements were also noted in the quality of
Department of trauma care apparent upon the arrival of patients
Orthopaedic Surgery,
North Staffordshire Royal at a major hospital5 and on mortality rates, using
Infirmary, Princes Road, multiple logistic regression analysis.6 7 Additional
Hartshill, Stoke on Trent studies suggest an improvement related to the
ST4 7LN, UK; mcarmont@ introduction of ATLS8 but others have failed to
hotmail.com
show significant improvement in patient out-
Submitted 5 March 2004 come and assessment.9
Accepted 1 June 2004 In the late 1980s, a retrospective analysis of
....................... deaths attributable to injury reported that
significant numbers could have been prevented.10
A subsequent Working Party Report from the
Royal College of Surgeons, England noted the
improvement in standards of care of the injured
patient in the United States after the develop-
ment of ATLS.11 ATLS was brought to the United
Kingdom with the first course taught at the
Royal College of Surgeons in 1988. By 1995, it
had been taught in over 25 countries and has
been shown to be an effective teaching course in
both developing and developed countries.12
Today ATLS is the internationally recognised
standard for the initial assessment and manage-
ment of serious injury.13
PARTICIPATION AND RELEVANCE
The initial role of the course was to teach doctors
working in rural situations such as general prac-
titioners at community and small district general
hospitals. Within the United Kingdom, junior doc-
tors are encouraged to complete the course early in
copyright.
their career and the Royal College of Surgeons and
the Faculty of Accident and Emergency Medicine
both require it for college membership examina-
tions. It has been suggested that it should be
mandatory for all doctors in training.14
Trainees themselves have been reported to be
very favourable towards ATLS. By 1996, 97% of
respondents to a questionnaire survey of senior
house officers regarded ATLS as useful for pre-
paration for the FRCS examination.15 In a sepa-
rate study 83% trainees considered it essential for
practising their proposed specialty. Most consid-
ered it an important advantage for their curriculum
vitae and 94% thought that ATLS saved lives.16
By 1995, 220 000 doctors had been trained on
1100 courses17 and currently demand for courses
exceeds availability. Reports surveying doctors
working as residents in emergency departments
have argued that there has been inadequate
provision of places on courses for this level of
training.18 Comments have been made upon the
increased participation of emergency medicine
specialists on ATLS courses. It has been argued
that these doctors are more likely to manage
major trauma on a regular basis, and so could
undertake a shorter course compared with that
provided for other specialties.19 Clearly this
would have an impact upon course standardisa-
tion. Rural doctors have shown a greater level of
improvement from ATLS course participation
and therefore it has been suggested that greater
efforts should be made to increase rural doctor
participation.20 Similarly doctors from non-
surgical medical specialties treat a significant
number of trauma events after ATLS course
participation.21
www.postgradmedj.com
88
The spread of ATLS doctrine has not always passed
smoothly. A survey of American general surgeons in 1995
disclosing that although one third of respondents had
completed the course within the past four years, only 40%
of those who considered themselves to be extremely con-
fident in trauma resuscitation had completed ATLS.22 A
common comment is that the protocol driven ATLS course
prevents doctors thinking through problems directed by
traditional medical teaching, although medical school educa-
tion is currently moving towards problem based learning.
Recent questionnaires completed by UK surgeons showed
that ATLS was now considered as being essential or of some
value.23
After introduction to the UK, places on ATLS courses were
preferentially offered to senior medical staff. Early providers
and instructors were quick to design local courses teaching
ATLS principles to junior and comparatively inexperienced
staff and encouraged others to do the same.24
Currently within the UK, the ATLS course is only available
to doctors at or senior to the senior house officer grade. Given
the limited availability of course places, junior doctors may
have moved on by the time a course becomes available
reducing maximal benefit. ATLS courses prepare medical
students more effectively for managing trauma patients
when judged by trauma simulation scenarios and authors
have suggested that the ATLS training should be part of the
medical school curriculum.25 26 Although this would be
expensive, the cost must be off set against future training
costs, time off work, and better patient management as a
junior doctor. New senior house officers have been shown to
make a greater improvement in trauma management testing
after an ATLS course when compared with accident and
emergency induction courses.27
Although the course is for the training of doctors primarily,
nurses,28 paramedics, firemen, and armed police officers have
shown a significant improvement in knowledge after par-
ticipating in the course as observers. Some of these have
gained exceptionally high marks in the formally assessed
sections of the course despite no previously recognised
medical training. This benefit is due to the structured nature
of the course, the teaching skills used, and the motivation of
the participants themselves. Educationalists appreciate that if
the motivation to learn is self generated by the participant,
learning will be more meaningful and the resultant change
longer lasting.29
Instruction in the United Kingdom, is provided by doctors
who have excelled as providers and are subsequently trained
at the Royal College of Surgeons in London. Many of these
doctors will have shown an aptitude for teaching on their
provider course, but will have no formal educational quali-
fications. In some cases their personal educational experience
may have been tarnished by previous teaching at medical
school. However, the skills of the educator on the instructor
course rapidly increase the development of instructional
abilities. A questionnaire evaluation of participants has shown
increased confidence in postgraduate medical education after
the instructor course.30 The bulk of the educational material on
the instructors’ course is provided in the form of a manual,31
which provides teaching advice in section III ‘‘Teaching how to
teach’’. This provides general teaching information about
lecturing, running group skill and practical stations, and the
final assessment. This is similar in nature to the core
educational material in The Generic Instructors Manual32 of The
Advanced Cardiac Life Support Course (ACLS). The theoretical
perspectives of the Generic Instructors Course have been
reviewed and this educational model has been recommended
for further general medical education.33
The Advanced Life Support Group, Manchester has
produced a specialist pocket guide for teaching. These
www.postgradmedj.com
Carmont
Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.2004.021543 on 8 February 2005. Downloaded from http://pmj.bmj.com/ on January 17, 2020 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by
educational principles are then readily available to medical
teachers not already involved in instructing on courses.34
COURSE COMPOSITION
The ATLS course aims to provide one safe method for the
management of severe trauma and to set standards of
resuscitation of the trauma victim. Previous trauma educa-
tion had been limited to didactic lectures and use of the
preceptor technique. One of the initial aims of ATLS was to
provide practical education with hands on techniques for the
management of trauma5 in a manner similar to those used on
the well established ACLS course.
The course is intensive, normally consisting of two to three
days’ duration, beginning with registration, introductory
sessions, and lectures. The first two days are comprised of
lectures, demonstrations, and discussion of initial assessment
and resuscitation, followed by more formal lectures such as
airway management, skill stations such as radiological
interpretation and practical skill stations such as chest drain
insertion.
The bulk of factual information is provided in a 444 page
manual17 now in its sixth edition, supplied to candidates
about six weeks before the course. A common reason for
candidates to fail to complete the course is due to lack of prior
preparation and inadequate reading. The manual may seem
somewhat daunting to doctors who have already participated
in the ACLS course, which has a smaller 138 page manual.35
Senior medical students taught on combined ACLS/ATLS
provider course had similar completion rates; 95% compared
with 92%.36 Reinforcement of the factual information within
the manual occurs during the formal lectures and skill
stations of the course.
Lectures are given to a standard format based upon a three
copyright.
part approach facilitating the teaching and learning process.37
This set, dialogue, and closure method enables the instruc-
tor to revise the factual content of the manual and allows
time for personal ‘‘associative’’ anecdotes and innovation to
emphasise particular points.38 Instructors may add photo-
graphic slides although the core text may not be changed.
Such creativity is thought to be advantageous in medical
education.39 Finally, there is opportunity for questions at the
end of the lecture. The educational value of the ATLS lectures
has been shown with students scoring higher in a post-
lecture series test compared with controls.40
Skill stations allow further attention to particular points of
ATLS practice, for example, shock management, radiological
interpretation. They also permit opportunity for small group
discussion, encourage active participation, making learning
successful and enjoyable.41 The small groups allow personal
attention to participants to meet their requirements with a
high instructor to candidate ratio, for example, 1:3, thus
permitting close attention to individual learning needs.
Instructors are taught to use a modified version of a five
step method for teaching clinical skills42 incorporating
overview, silent demonstration, instructor described demon-
stration, student described demonstration, and student
demonstration. The silent run through provides the candidate
with strong visual images, which provides a mental practice
on which to base further learning.38 43 However, the silent run
through does not improve skill acquisition for radiological
interpretation.44
Criticisms have been raised regarding specialist skill
instruction.45 Care is taken within the session to ensure the
skill is taught according to the ATLS method for all can-
didates, without offending highly experienced doctors who
may perform the skills on a daily basis.
The practical skill stations are made as realistic as possible.
Early American courses used live anaesthetised animals
for procedures, for example, chest drain insertion and
The Advanced Trauma Life Support course
pericardiocentesis.3 UK legislation prevents this practice,
however the use of cadaveric animals has been adopted as
an educational tool46 providing a balance of realistic simula-
tion and practicality. These skill stations have been revised
and have been performed on artificial human patient
simulators, which students found to be favourable47 and by
computer simulation.48 They have even been practised in
micro-gravity by NASA.49
After small group discussion of triage, participants have
shown improved prioritisation ability in multiple patient
simulations50 and conflict.51 52
PARTICIPANT/PROVIDER ASSESSMENT
A multiple choice questions (MCQ) pre-test paper is sent to
candidates with the manual. This provides course partici-
pants with increased motivation, enthusiasm, and an
example of the expected standard of knowledge53 54 and also
highlights those candidates who may not have prepared
properly or may need to have special attention. Quantitative
assessment of knowledge is examined by a MCQ on the final
morning of the course and a pass mark of 32 of 40 maintains
high standards.
The MCQ examination for the ATLS course is deemed so
discriminatory regarding trauma management decisions, that
it has been used recently to evaluate trauma education in
medical students at the University of Toronto.55 Although
MCQs have been shown to be the least preferred method of
assessment by students,56 they have been shown to be more
efficient, reliable, and valid than patient management
problems in the assessment of clinical competence.57 58
Throughout the course participants are continually objec-
tively assessed, with instructors taking note of questions
asked and answered, and group dynamics together with skill
and aptitude at the skill stations.
The course culminates in a final assessment of the
resuscitation of a multiply injured patient. This ‘‘role play’’,
termed a moulage, allows instructors to gain an impression of
a candidate’s degree of competence. This is based upon the
ATLS philosophy of treating the greatest threat to life first,
with rapid assessment and resuscitation of the patient
according to priority. This practice was initially thought to
be controversial as it contradicted the established medical
wisdom of the need to take a history and examine the patient
leading to a differential diagnosis.59 The improved moulage
performance of residents, before and after an ATLS course
has shown that ATLS teaching methods are effective.60 61
During the later stages of the course experienced partici-
pants are introduced to the concept of critiquing another
participant’s performance. This allows opportunities to
reinforce instruction and identify participants with an
aptitude for teaching. Such reflection has been advocated in
professional education.62
Non-formal assessment of participants is performed during
breaks in the course and through mentoring sessions. During
these periods, time is specifically set aside to permit one to
one contact between participant and instructor. Discussion
permits opportunity for individual learning needs to be
addressed. Participant’s strong points can be praised and the
instructor can identify the participant’s weaknesses and areas
of concern.63
RE-CERTIFICATION
After completion of the ATLS course successful participants
are provided with a certificate, which remains valid for four
years. It is well appreciated that without regular practice
ATLS skills deteriorate as time progresses after the course.
Authors report a deterioration of knowledge by six months
after the course however the important principles are
retained for some six years.64 Those doctors involved in
89
Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.2004.021543 on 8 February 2005. Downloaded from http://pmj.bmj.com/ on January 17, 2020 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by
managing trauma on a regular basis, for example, surgeons,
have been shown to retain their knowledge for longer when
compared with physicians. Physicians tend to have lost a
significant amount of acquired cognitive knowledge by 3.5
years.65 It has been suggested that trauma volume influences
retention of skills66 but sex, age, and practice specialty do not
affect attrition rate.67 Re-certification is required to maintain
accreditation. Cognitive deterioration was not shown to
improve after the last course revision.68
Instructors are required to teach on two courses a year to
maintain their accreditation. This permits the maintenance of
resuscitation skills and knowledge together with teaching
abilities. The retention of knowledge is further aided by the
fact that most instructors manage trauma on a regular basis
and use the skills taught on the instructor course on teaching
medical students and residents. Studies have shown that
both providers and instructors lose ATLS skills over time but
cognitive knowledge is lost quicker than practical skills.69
COURSE EVALUATION
Since the initial course in 1977 evaluation has been an
essential part of ATLS with course participants completing an
evaluation questionnaire before the course closure. This is
personal to individual teaching centres and covers the lec-
tures, skill stations, practical demonstrations, and discus-
sions on a five point scale. Environmental and domestic
points are also evaluated to ensure an optimal learning
atmosphere.
Instructors carefully scrutinise comments looking for
praise or areas for improvement after varying presentations
of the standard lectures. So far there has been little published
on ATLS course evaluation.
copyright.
COURSE REVISION/UPDATE
As medical science progresses, investigation and treatment
methods are evaluated and management strategies are
revised. This is similarly true for the ATLS course, after
publication of the sixth edition of the manual in 1997 and the
seventh in the near future.
Teaching techniques as well as the scientific content have
been updated. Previous course improvements in 1997 have
emphasised interactivity between the student and the
educational process. Didactic lectures were shortened and
more focused discussions were used to encourage learning.
Skill stations were redesigned around case scenarios to
encourage the cognitive process and performance of the
psychomotor skill,70 for example, the step-wise assessment of
airway management with cervical spine control after a motor
vehicle accident. In a randomised control trial, doctors
educated in a small group session performed better on
patient management than a didactically lectured cohort.71 72
Such improvements have been evaluated and participants
have been shown to improve clinical trauma management
skills without the loss of cognitive performance.73 This
improvement was thought to be attributable to interactive
teaching, adult education principles, opportunities for dis-
cussion, provision of feedback, and stimulation for self
learning. The skill improvement was maintained after two
years compared with previous courses, however deterioration
of cognitive knowledge remained similar.69
Future educational developments include changes of
emphasis within current management pathways and
increased involvement of the student in the educational
process at skill stations. Medical changes will also feature
in the new manual including the criteria for the lateral
cervical spine radiograph and the new concept of the
focused abdominal sonogram for trauma (FAST) ultrasound
examination.69
www.postgradmedj.com
90
CONCLUSION
The ATLS course has developed into a global resuscitation
programme with confirmed results in terms of both teaching
and trauma outcome. The course’s methods have stood up to
significant scientific scrutiny over the past 25 years. Such
continual critical appraisal ensures modernisation and
improvement both medically and educationally. The new
scientific and educational content of the updated manual are
eagerly awaited.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Dr Peter Oakley for his assistance
with the preparation of this manuscript together with the out-
standing support and assistance from the staff of The North
Staffordshire Medical Institute Library and the Department of
Medical Illustration North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary.
Funding: none.
Conflicts of interest: none declared.
The author is associated with the Centre for Primary Health Care Studies,
The University of Warwick.
REFERENCES
1 Carley S, Driscoll P. Trauma education. Resuscitation 2001;48:47–56.
2 Collicott PE. Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS); past, present, future—
16th Stone Lecture, American Trauma Society. J Trauma 1992;33:749–53.
3 Sims JK. Advanced Trauma Life Support Laboratory: pilot implementation and
evaluation. JACEP 1979;8:150–3.
4 Collicott PE. Advanced Trauma Life Support Course, an improvement in rural
rrauma care. Nebr Med J 1979;Sep:279–80.
5 Collicott PE, Hughes I. Training in advanced trauma life support. JAMA
1980;243:1156–9.
6 Ali J, Adam R, Butler AK, et al. Trauma outcome improves following the
advanced trauma life support program in a developing country. J Trauma
1993;34:890–8.
7 Adam R, Stedman M, Winn J, et al. Improving trauma care in Trinidad and
Tobage. West Indian Med J 1994;43:36–8.
8 Calleary JG, El-Nazir AK, El-Sadig O, et al. Advanced trauma life support
principles: an audit of their application in a rural trauma centre. Ir J Med Sci
1999;168:93–8.
9 Vestrup JA, Stormorken A, Wood V. Impact of Advanced Trauma Life Support
training on early trauma management. Am J Surg 1988;155:705–7.
10 Anderson ID, Woodford M, De Dombal FT, et al. Retropsective study of 1000
deaths from injury in England and Wales. BMJ 1988;296:1305–8.
11 Royal College of Surgeons. Report of the Working Party on the management
of patients with major injuries. London: Royal College Surgeons, 1988:32.
12 Ali J, Adam R, Stedman M, et al. Cognitive and attitudinal impact of the
Advanced Trauma Life Support Program in a developing country. J Trauma
1994;36:695–702.
13 Gwinnutt CL, Driscoll PA. Advanced Trauma Life Support. Eur J Anaesth
1995;13:95–101.
14 Ben-Abraham R, Weinbroum AA, Kluger Y, et al. Pediatricians and the
advanced trauma life support (ATLS): time for reconsideration. Isr Med Assoc J
2000;2:513–16.
15 Graham CA, Sinclair MT. A survey of advanced trauma life support training
for trainees in acute surgical specialities. Injury 1996;27:631–4.
16 Campbell B, Heal J, Evans S, et al. What do trainees think about advanced
trauma life support (ATLS)? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2000;82:263–7.
17 American College of Surgeons. Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) student
manual, 6th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons, 1997.
18 Hughes G, Price A. ATLS: are we training the wrong people? Aust N Z J Surg
1999;69:567–8.
19 Richards JR, Panacek EA, Brofeldt BT. Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS):
necessary for emergency physicians? Eur J Emerg Med Sep, 2000;7:207–10.
20 Ben-Abraham R, Stein M, Shemer J, et al. Advanced trauma life support
(ATLS) courses: should training be refocused towards rural physicians.
Eur J Emerg Med 1999;6:111–14.
21 Ben-Abraham R, Stein M, Kluger Y, et al. The impact of advanced trauma life
support course on graduates with a non-surgical medical background.
Eur J Emerg Med 1997;4:11–14.
22 Esposito TJ, Kuby A, Unfred C, et al. General surgeons and the Advanced
Trauma Life Support Course: is it time to refocus? J Trauma 1995;39:929–34.
23 Brooks A, Williams J, Butcher W, et al. General surgeons and trauma. A
questionnaire survey of general surgeons in training in ATLS and involvement
in the trauma team. Injury 2003;34:484–6.
24 Williams L, Muwnaga CL, Worlock PH, et al. Teaching trauma management
in the accident and emergency department. Arch Emerg Med 1991;8:205–9.
25 Ali J, Howard M. The advanced trauma life support course for senior medical
students. Can J Surg 1992;35:541–5.
26 Ali J, Cohen RJ, Gana TJ, et al. Effect of the Advanced Trauma Life Support
Program on medical students’ performance in simulated trauma patient
management. J Trauma 1998;44:588–91.
www.postgradmedj.com
Carmont
Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.2004.021543 on 8 February 2005. Downloaded from http://pmj.bmj.com/ on January 17, 2020 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by
27 Gautam V, Heyworth J. A method to measure the value of formal training in
trauma management:comparison between ATLS and induction courses. Injury
1995;26:253–5.
28 Gautam V, Heyworth J. The value of the abbreviated ATLS course for accident
and emergency nurses. Accid Emerg Nurs 1994;2:100–2.
29 Darkenwald GG, Merriam SB. Adult education foundations of practice. New
York: Harper, Row, 1982.
30 Moss GD. Advanced Trauma Life Support instructor training in the UK: an
evaluation. Postgrad Med J 1998;14:220–4.
31 American College of Surgeons. Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS)
instructor manual, 6th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons, 1997.
32 Resuscitation Council (UK). Generic Instructor Course, Advanced Life Support
instructor manual. London: Resuscitation Council (UK), 2001.
33 Davis M, Conaghan P. An examination of the theoretical perspectives
underlying the ALSG generic instructors course. Med Teach 2002;24:85–9.
34 Mackway-Jones K, Walker M. Pocket guide to teaching for medical
instructors. London: BMJ Books, 1997.
35 Resuscitation Council (UK). Advanced Life Support (ALS) Course provider
manual, 4th ed. London: Resuscitation Council (UK), 2000.
36 Mehne PR, Allison EJ Jr, Williamson JE, et al. A required, combined ACLS/
ATLS provider course for senior medical students at East Caroline University.
Ann Emerg Med Jun, 1987;16:666–8.
37 Joyce B, Weil M. Models of teaching, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1972.
38 Gagne RM. The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985.
39 Handfield-Jones R, Nasmith L. Creativity in medical education: the use of
innovative techniques in clinical teaching. Med Teach 1993;15:3–11.
40 Papp KK, Miller FB. A required trauma lecture series for junior medical
students. J Trauma 1995;38:2–4.
41 Abercrombie MLJ. The anatomy of judgement. London: Penguin, 1960.
42 George JH, Doto FX. A simple five-step method for teaching clinical skills. Fam
Med 2001;33:577–8.
43 Ausubel DA. Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1968.
44 Murdoch Eaton D, Cottrell D. Structured teaching methods enhance skill
acquisition but not problem solving abilities: an evaluation of the ‘‘silent run
through’’. Med Educ 1999;33:19–23.
45 Bennett JR, Bodernham AR, Berridge JC. Advanced Trauma Life Support: a
time for reappraisal. Anaesthesia 1992;47:798–800.
46 Eaton BD, Messent DO, Haywood IR. Animal cadaveric models for advanced
life support training. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990;72:135–9.
47 Block EF, Lottenberg L, Flint L, et al. Use of a human patient simulator for the
advanced trauma life support course. Am Surg 2002;68:648–51.
copyright.
48 Liu A, Kaufman C, Ritchie T. A computer-based simulator for diagnostic
peritoneal lavage. Stud Health Technol Inform 2001;81:279–85.
49 Campbell MR, Billica RD, Johnston SL 3rd, et al. erformance of advanced
trauma life support procedures in microgravity. Aviat Space Environ Med
2002;73:907–12.
50 Williams MJ, Lockey AS, Culshaw MC. Improved trauma management with
advanced life support (ATLS) training. J Accid Emerg Med 1997;14:81–3.
51 Walsh DP, Lammert GR, Devoll J. The effectiveness of the advanced trauma
life support system in a mass casualty situation by non-trauma-experienced
physicians: Grenada 1983. J Emerg Med 1989;7:175–80.
52 Greenslade GL, Taylor RH. Advanced Trauma Life Support aboard RFA
Argus. J R Nav Med Serv 1992;78:23–6.
53 Rodin AE, Carlson PG, Barton JC. The pre-test as a pre-instructional strategy
in continuing medical education. J Med Educ 1978;53:208–9.
54 Hill DA. Role of pre-test in the progressive assessment of medical students.
Aust N Z J Surg 1992;62:743–6.
55 Ali J. The trauma evaluation and management (TEAM) teaching module: its
role for senior medical students in Canada. Can J Surg 2003;46:99–102.
56 Hill DA, Guinea AI, McCarthy WH. Formative assessment: a student
perspective. Med Educ 1994;28:394–9.
57 Norcini JJ, Swanson DB, Grosso LJ, et al. A Comparison of knowledge,
synthesis and clinical judgment. Multiple choice questions in the assessment of
physician competence. Eval Health Prof 1984;7:485–99.
58 Norcini JJ, Swanson DB, Grosso LJ, et al. Reliability, validity and efficency of
multiple choice questions and patient management problem item formats in
the assessment of clinical competence. Med Educ 1985;19:238–47.
59 Driscoll P, Gwinnutt C, McNeill. Controversies in advanced trauma life
support. J Trauma 1999;1:171–6.
60 Ali J, Gana TJ, Howard M. Trauma mannequin assessment of management
skills of surgical residents after advanced life support training. J Surg Res
2000;93:197–200.
61 Marshall Rl, Smith JS, Gorman PJ, et al. Use of a human patient simulator in
the development of resident trauma management skills. J Trauma
2001;51:17–21.
62 Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, et al. The consultation: an approach to
learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
63 Daloz L. Effective teaching and mentoring. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1986.
64 Ali J, Cohen R, Adam R, et al. Attrition of cognitive and trauma management
skills after the advanced trauma life support (ATLS) course. J Trauma
1996;40:860–6.
65 Blumenfeld A, Ben-Abraham R, Stein M, et al. Cognitive knowledge and
decline after advanced trauma life support courses. J Trauma
1998;44:513–16.
66 Ali J, Howard M, Williams J. Is attrition of Advanced Trauma Life Support
acquired skills affected by patient volume. Am J Surg 2002;183:142–5.
67 Ali J, Howard M, Williams JI. Do factors other than trauma volume affect
attrition of ATLS acquired skills? J Trauma 2003;54:835–41.
The Advanced Trauma Life Support course 91

68 Ali J, Adam R, Pierre I, et al. Comparison of performance 2 years after the old
and new (interactive) ATLS courses. J Surg Res 2001;97:71–5.
69 Azcona A, Gutierrez GE, Fernandez CJ, et al. Attrition of advanced life
support (ATLS) skills among ATLS instructors and providers in Mexico. J Am
Coll Surg 2002;195:372–7.
70 Bell RM, Krantz BE, Weigelt JA. ATLS: a foundation for trauma training. Ann
Emerg Med 1999;34:233–7.
Postgrad Med J: first published as 10.1136/pgmj.2004.021543 on 8 February 2005. Downloaded from http://pmj.bmj.com/ on January 17, 2020 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by
71 Heale J, Davis D, Norman G, et al. A randomised controlled trial assessing
the impact of problem based versus didactic teaching methods in CME. Proc
Annu Conf Res Med Educ 1988;27:72–7.
72 Bligh D. What’s the use of lectures? 6th ed. Bristol: Intellect, 2002.
73 Ali J, Adam RU, Josa D, et al. Comparison of performance of interns
completing the old (1993) and new interactive (1997) Advanced Trauma Life
Support Courses. J Trauma 1999;46:80–6.

Clinical Evidence—Call for contributors

Clinical Evidence is a regularly updated evidence-based journal available worldwide both as

a paper version and on the internet. Clinical Evidence needs to recruit a number of new
contributors. Contributors are healthcare professionals or epidemiologists with experience in
evidence-based medicine and the ability to write in a concise and structured way.
Areas for which we are currently seeking authors:
N Child health: nocturnal enuresis
N Eye disorders: bacterial conjunctivitis
N Male health: prostate cancer (metastatic)
N Women’s health: pre-menstrual syndrome; pyelonephritis in non-pregnant women
However, we are always looking for others, so do not let this list discourage you.
Being a contributor involves:
N Selecting from a validated, screened search (performed by in-house Information
Specialists) epidemiologically sound studies for inclusion.
N Documenting your decisions about which studies to include on an inclusion and exclusion
form, which we keep on file.
N Writing the text to a highly structured template (about 1500–3000 words), using evidence

copyright.
from the final studies chosen, within 8–10 weeks of receiving the literature search.
N Working with Clinical Evidence editors to ensure that the final text meets epidemiological
and style standards.
N Updating the text every six months using any new, sound evidence that becomes available.
The Clinical Evidence in-house team will conduct the searches for contributors; your task is
simply to filter out high quality studies and incorporate them in the existing text.
N To expand the topic to include a new question about once every 12–18 months.
If you would like to become a contributor for Clinical Evidence or require more information
about what this involves please send your contact details and a copy of your CV, clearly
stating the clinical area you are interested in, to Klara Brunnhuber (kbrunnhuber@
bmjgroup.com).

Call for peer reviewers

Clinical Evidence also needs to recruit a number of new peer reviewers specifically with an
interest in the clinical areas stated above, and also others related to general practice. Peer
reviewers are healthcare professionals or epidemiologists with experience in evidence-based
medicine. As a peer reviewer you would be asked for your views on the clinical relevance,
validity, and accessibility of specific topics within the journal, and their usefulness to the
intended audience (international generalists and healthcare professionals, possibly with
limited statistical knowledge). Topics are usually 1500–3000 words in length and we would
ask you to review between 2–5 topics per year. The peer review process takes place
throughout the year, and our turnaround time for each review is ideally 10–14 days.
If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for Clinical Evidence, please
complete the peer review questionnaire at www.clinicalevidence.com or contact Klara
Brunnhuber (kbrunnhuber@bmjgroup.com).

www.postgradmedj.com